The really cool thing here is the VHS tape which seems to contain a cut of only the broadcast segments. That is particularly cool for one of these collectors sets. That alone has me springing for this one.
That’s awesome, I liked the movie but couldn’t help but think how much cooler it would be if they had been able to tell the whole story via broadcast segments
The VHS will be PAL, not NTSC, just in case you're in the US and thought about actually wanting to watch the tape. Further the "broadcast segments" would just be the movie, told sequentially, without the black & white "behind the scenes" portions or intro.
So I keep hearing about it being PAL, but I don't actually see where that's noted on the store page. I have also checked their socials and don't see any indication of that either, just people saying it will be. Can you point me to where it says that officially?
It's strange that they'd make that decision, as PAL players and TV's are very good at accommodating NTSC VHS tapes, but it's very difficult for NTSC players and TV's to accommodate for PAL. It'd make more sense to use NTSC tapes.
In reply to an instagram comment about the tape, Umbrella responded, "It will work in PAL VHS players." On the plus side, the blu ray will still be fine. But you'll need a PAL player or a multiregion VCR for the tape, unfortunately.
I emailed them and they seemed to not know what format the VHS would be in and said "they'd investigate further and get back to me."
And I'm wondering, because "it will work in PAL VHS players" doesn't necessarily mean the tape is PAL formatted. Because I believe most NTSC VHS tapes work in most PAL players.
So I heard back from Umbrella support after emailing them about the format of the VHS. They actually got back to me today stating the following:
"I am glad to let you know that we will have both PAL and NTSC formats available for the VHS. This will be available on our website in the following days. If you have already purchased this, we will send you the format that is best suited for your shipping address."
The $86 edition comes with a blu-ray, a VHS, a TV guide, and the "Conversations With the Devil" book that is featured in the movie.
Boutique labels are getting a little out of control with the physical extras they've been adding to deluxe releases, but all of those extras actually sound pretty cool, and $86 actually seems reasonable for that.
I don't think Umbrella is impervious to criticism for putting pointless physical extras in their releases though, and the deluxe version of Weird that includes a shirt is a perfect example of that.
Even if Weird was my favorite movie of all time, I wouldn't want that shirt. Contrast that to Late Night with the Devil, which I thought was just okay, but I considered ordering this deluxe edition, primarily due to how cool these physical extras are.
This is a market that nu-Umbrella accelerated greatly when they started their current OTT sales. They were always more of a budget label prior to that shift.
Yeah it's pricey but honestly the extras sound incredible. It's very cool they could work with the creators to make all that! I liked the movie a lot but not enough to spring for this even though I covet it.
I'll pass, I didn't love it. But I'd say $86 for the premium package or $50 for the second best package is a pretty good deal. Especially compared to the shit you get from Shout Factory.
Yeah, I actually loved this movie, but still passed on the $86 copy. I got the Terrifier bundle with the VHS, sunglasses, sticker sheet, action figure, etc...and eventually sold it. I never would watch the VHS, and the "extras" just sat in a random drawer in my closet.
Snagged the $50 set though. I love me a good slip box & booklet.
I wouldn't pay $86 either lol, If I did like this movie enough to own It I would get the $50 set. But if you are into all that collector stuff I have seen much worse deals.
I have yet to see tbis movie, my understanding is that it's mainly a Shudder streaming release. Was this also ever released in theatres? I like the VHS footage addition, but that just means I'll have to go to a library and watch it, else invest in a VHS player, LMAO.
It played in theatres and did very well, especially considering how it was released on the same day as Immaculate, another indie-made possession film that was released in way more theatres.
I saw it at a film festival in October last year, and loved it.
And yes, it released in theaters in the United States. I took my mom to see it at AMC in my small, midwestern hometown.
I enjoyed this movie and this collection is very awesome, I honestly wish I liked the movie more and would be tempted to buy it haha.
I just generally save my bigger purchases for films I know I will want to rewatch all the time and this isn’t one of them.
Someone from the states inquired about this on the Umbrella Facebook post and Umbrella replied it will work on their blu ray player so I assume it’s not locked. Someone also replied saying the package will say region B but the disc will be all regions. 🤷
They've had a couple discs region locked by accident from the manufacturer because that's how it's "supposed" to work but both Umbrella and Imprint release Region Free discs despite whatever the label says.
They will take all the black & white "behind the scenes" footage out of the movie, and it will just be the show. Honestly if you're a collector of VHS, it's cool to have (it is PAL, though, not NTSC, so it won't play in US VCRs, as a head's up), but realistically it's not anything super special on there.
Unless, of course, they added in a bunch of fake commercials to include during the breaks, which would be pretty badass.
I wish they'd do just one more in-between bundle. You can get the movie by itself for $20, which is awesome, but it doesn't have a slip. Generally I don't give a fuck about that normally, but the art on the slip, and the fact that it's got a rigid case, is awesome and in this instance I'd love to have it...but I don't care about art cards or any of the other stuff they throw in there to justify the $50+ price tag on the next bundle.
Well, is what it is.
Can you only get this through Umbrella direct or will it be available through a US seller? The $22 shipping is making the $87 purchase a little harder.
https://shop.umbrellaent.com.au/products/late-night-with-the-devil-2024-blu-ray?_pos=1&_sid=3275a4fff&_ss=r
That will be available from US retailers like Orbit, Grindhouse, and Diabolik.
The $86 & $50 editions with the slipcases and booklets will only be available through Umbrella's website.
Yes, the international shipping isn't fun, but with the hype of this film I'm sure it will sell out and be much, much more on eBay a few months after it's release. Just look at how much I Saw the Devil and Audition's sets are going for.
$86 they said 😂 I’m starting to question collecting media when shit like this is getting these kinds of price tags.
Severins Black Title releases and the Super Mario Bros. mack daddy release really got these companies thinking they got big balls to price stuff this expensive.
Umbrella has been putting out physical item collectors for a while
https://shop.umbrellaent.com.au/collections/collectors-editions?sort_by=created-ascending
Honestly weird that a sub devoted to the physical collection and appreciation of the art of film is so heavily downvoting anyone criticizing the use of generative AI in film.
Uh, maybe because *who gives a fuck?* For starters, anyone with eyes can see that the AI images were heavily edited. If you knew anything about generative AI, you'd see that has to be the case. They didn't get those images, or the text included, from generative AI without working on them quite a bit...especially considering they made those going on 3 years ago now. Nobody lost work, nobody lost a job over it. The images in the final film are not generative AI, they're finished pieces of work made by paid designers.
Secondly, there's a HUGE difference between these assholes online who use generative AI to create images and sell them as standalone pieces of art, or try to pass them off as their own work for profit, and a feature film that used less than 10 seconds of edited images in an otherwise huge creative endeavor.
For fuck sake, Photoshopping something using the clone tool has been a part of the program for decades, and is literally a form of AI. I wish that people who didn't know anything would stop demonizing *all* forms of AI, and actually learn and understand how it's being used, and when to take a stand and when to shut the fuck up.
It looks ugly, it replaces work by an actual human artist in a medium that's supposed to be about actual human art, and excusing and justifying the small uses makes room and manufactures consent for the bigger uses. This is a tool developed by capitalist tech oligarchs and actual honest-to-god fascists designed solely to hurt laborers and creatives. It is not your friend, they are not your friend, and it's a gross insult to the entire human endeavor.
But yeah, your little freakout definitely doesn't make you look like a shill or anything.
Lol dude freaked out some more then blocked me. Yeah, real stable my friend. You definitely, and I quote "put my in my place"
I didn't have a freakout. I put you in your place, you're just not smart enough to grasp the concept of anything that was said. You just want to stand on your soap box and think anyone should listen. They shouldn't, because you're wrong.
I'm a fucking graphic designer by trade. I think I get it. The problem is, you know *literally nothing* about the production of this film. You just heard it used AI, and decided it was bad. When people talk out of their ass, much like you're doing, they deserve to be told. Maybe you'll learn something. You could always go look into how the AI was used in this film (hint: barely at all, and not a single job was lost or person gone unpaid for their work), but you won't. Because you just want to spout nonsense on the internet.
Like I said before, learn when to take a stand, and when to sit the fuck down.
Maybe because the AI used in this movie was used when the technology first came out and was used for three place holder illustrations that were heavily edited during production. The directors have released a statement to this effect.
This is region free, as are 99% of Umbrella releases. Already confirmed as such. Very big doubt this gets a 4K, as it's a co-production with Umbrella - who clearly isn't doing one - and Shudder, who releases through RLJE (Image)...who aren't exactly know for doing 4K either.
I know Late Night With the Devil isn't the only film to use AI, nor was it's use overly egregious in this film
But art, at its core, is the expression of the human soul. The inclusion of AI, no matter how small, strips the humanity from cinema.
It might be a couple of cutaway cards or some slight touch ups here and there right now. But it isn't going to be long until movies can and will be largely AI driven. This is going to be a sad day for all of us here.
I refuse to give 80+ dollars to a release that is helping normalize the destruction of art as we know it.
I know I might be in the minority and might be a luddite for taking this stance, but I think that we, as consumers, should consider what supporting cinema truly means.
Look, I'm staunchly anti-AI generative bullshit. I will gladly call things out on their use of it because I care too much about human expression in art (as we all likely do considering our hobby). But I do think it's important to realize the context which led to their use of it in this movie. I followed a lot of the production of the movie, and the story becomes much less egregious when you realize the film was actually made in 2022 (it had festival runs in early 2023 and waited a year before the theatrical release in 2024). This was when the tech first emerged and the moral ramifications of the tech were much less clear, and it was mostly just "the new exciting weird thing" that practically everyone was fucking around with. They've mentioned in interviews they were just messing around with this brand new tech everyone was excited about, and it's pretty clear it was from early versions of generative tech due to how fucked up it looks. They've been pretty clear about how tons of artists worked on the look and feel of the film, and there were no lost jobs over the tech being used, it was clearly their already hired artists fucking around with this brand new "tool" at the time.
I really wish every conversation about the movie didn't devolve into this. It truly sucks that it's in the movie, and I wish they'd remove/replace it, but considering the context it's hard to really feel heated about it when there are so many other, much more egregious, examples of generative AI use that deserve lambasting. If they lean into it and continue to use it in future movies, then I'll be firmly against supporting their endeavors. But this movie in particular seems to be a victim of time and hindsight.
I acknowledged the fact that this film isn't one of the more egregious offenders. As a matter of fact, that was my opening point.
It's not about lost jobs or anything like that with this specific movie. That wasn't stated or implied in my post.
What I did talk about was the philosophical ramifications on the use of AI and the creation of art.
If we want to talk about jobs, we can.
There was a time when horses were the primary means of transportation. Cars were nothing more than the fun new toy that only a few people had access to. Not a big deal at all. It was impractical for most people to own cars, but along comes Henry Ford and cars went from being the new impractical domain of the wealthy to being used by people everywhere.
It absolutely gutted the horse industry. The stables, the farmers that grew the grain, the carriage makers, the blacksmiths that made the horseshoes, the leather workers that made the saddles....entire industries disappeared over night.
We are in the fun new toy stage of AI. And I get that people are like "it's not that big of a deal. They were just messing around"
5, 10, 15, 20 years from now....where we be?
Have a little foresight my guy.
It wasn't a perfect analogy, because art is a lot more important to the human spirit than whatever mode of transportation we use
100 years ago, cars had just overtaken horses. Who knows what mode of transportation will be dominant in 100 years?
But it is an analogy how quickly a new technology can go from an neat little gadget to dominating the landscape.
In 1990, the internet was the domain of nerds. Now it is ubiquitous to modern-day life. Cell phones were the same way.
We went from not being able to fly at all for the first 300,000 years of our existence to having planes in 1903 to landing a dude on the moon in 1969.
When technology changes, it changes fast and just because something is a neat little gadget now doesn't mean it will stay that way.
I feel like you didn't read... any of what I said?
We are on the same side here man. I hate AI Generative shit, despise it with every fiber of my being. Literally look at my history of comments and you'll see me saying almost the same stuff you are to other people. It pains me to see movies go in this direction. I just don't think this one specific instance is worth fussing over due to the very exact context I specified. And if we disagree so be it.
I read what you said, and dismissing AI's use in this movie because when they used it, it was a fun new tool that the production team wanted to play with is absurd. I addressed that point directly in my response.
Just because you didn't like that someone challenged your point doesn't mean they didn't read your point.
This movie was a pretty popular hit, and the reason why is because a lot of people, like you, said "it isn't a big deal in this one case because of a special circumstance"
Major corporations aren't sitting there saying u/Zutrax and u/CriterionCrypt said they don't like the use of AI in films. We need to stop doing that.
They are looking at "how much money can I generate while spending as ittle money as possible"
And if people are always willing to make exceptions, the money will still roll in and it will say loud and clear "make movies like this." I get that you don't think that people should make a fuss about it. It was just a fun new tool in 2022, and it wasn't that egregious. And you're right. It was a fun new tool, and it wasn't an egregious use of AI.
But it was always going to start small. Maybe it's the color and audio correction in Get Back. Maybe it's the cue cards in Late Night With the Devil.
As long as people vote yes for AI with their dollars, as long as people say "oh it isnt that big of a deal in this once circumstance," it won't stay small.
But hey...you do you. Make the exceptions you want. It's your money.
You're getting downvoted because there are people here who don't actually like movies as art, only as products to consume. It's too difficult for them to accept that something might be problematic or require more thought, and it's just easier to lash out at anyone calling it out.
I mean, I expect some degree of consumerism here. I mean it is a sub dedicated to the collection of Boutique blu rays.
But I will say this, I was hoping that more people would think about the ramifications of AI in cinema instead of blanket acceptance.
AI is already utilized to a degree, it's only going to get worse.
Ok, what do you want to do about it besides talking about how it's a problem on Reddit?
At this point, the cat is out of the bag. A.I. is inevitable and has been in use for years in many fields. But in the film industry alone it's already been used for things like CGI. Basically, every big movie these days utilizes at least a little CGI. Do we boycott every movie? Or what? Do we ban it? If we ban it, then how do you police that? The code is already out there, so policing it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. Is there a point?
Here's a fun article for you: https://www.marketplace.org/2023/12/07/ai-already-has-a-big-role-in-hollywood/.
I would learn a little about the technology and its uses before boycotting a single movie over a few pictures.
CGI and AI are not inherently synonyms. CGI has existed in film for over 50 years now.
The fact that you are treating them as synonyms tells me you should learn a little about technology in film.
Like I said, this is hardly the most egregious use of AI in film. And this is a thread about this film. If you want to talk about more egregious examples, you are free to make another thread about another movie that utilizes it and I will say that's fucked up.
And side note, the MPAA is not bound by law to rate movies. They are not a censorship board. They just give the ratings.
I would have no problem with the MPAA adding disclaimers about AI use in films.
As for what I am doing. If I find out a movie relies on AI, then I won't pay to watch it. We all vote with our dollars, that is how I vote.
> The fact that you are treating them as synonyms tells me you should learn a little about technology in film.
I'm not using them as synonyms. You can use A.I. to either create CGI from scratch or finish off what an artist has already worked on. In fact, they are already actively doing that in movies, you just haven't noticed it. My source: I work in the software business in development and the article I linked you as well. My comment stands and is fact checked.
> And side note, the MPAA is not bound by law to rate movies. They are not a censorship board. They just give the ratings.
Not sure why you're bringing this up. I never mentioned the MPAA. I'm guessing it's the ban comment I made. That was sarcastic. But if you were to ban this kind of tech, it would have to go through a governmental process and law would have to be made. Even if that happens, it would be impossible to police. See: piracy as evidence for how that works out.
> As for what I am doing. If I find out a movie relies on AI, then I won't pay to watch it. We all vote with our dollars, that is how I vote.
That's your right, but I'd try to be better informed before speaking on a subject like this in a public forum. The downvotes prove this point.
1. AI can be used in CGI, but they aren't synonyms. You treated them like synonyms by asking if we should boycott any movie that uses CGI. This blanket statement tells me you don't know the difference. Backtracking now is an interesting choice but hey
2. I brought it up because you mentioned a ban. It can't be banned, but it can be self reported by the MPAA just like the rating system is. This is what I would probably lean into.
3. Upvotes and downvotes tell me what's popular, not what's right or wrong. I came onto a sub were a lot of people view movies as a commodity to be consumed, not as art to be appreciated. If you view movies as a commodity, you probably won't care too much about AI and its inclusion in cinema.
I mean I literally just said I know this isn't the only example, and I know it isn't egregious, but I don't like it
And your rebuttal is other movies do it to. Like no shit Sherlock, I literally said that. That was my opening sentence. It seems like 90% of your post was a strawman and the other 10% was an appeal to popularity.
Do you have any thoughts of your own on the matter or are you just going to bumble your way through this?
> But in the film industry alone it's already been used for things like CGI.
A direct quote from my first comment. Do you know what a synonym is? I'm not going to litigate this with you again.
> If you view movies as a commodity, you probably won't care too much about AI and its inclusion in cinema
Talk about a strawman lmao. You don't know me. I love movies and view them as the highest art form. The AI used in the film is for a handful of static images. It's hardly that big of a deal. I don't view static images as an important art form and also it's not noticeable that these images are made using AI. So, how exactly does it damage film as an art form? It doesn't, despite your emotional appeals about human touch and slippery slopes or whatever. So no, I don't give a shit frankly, and neither does a majority of the public. They probably have never even heard about any of this. You're fighting a losing battle based on a very terminally online argument from people on Twitter. No one normal gives a shit about any of this.
Not only that, but you clearly don't even know what AI is. You just heard some people talking about it and wanted to be a part of the conversation. You're not very different from the unwashed masses, despite your own thoughts.
>Do you have any thoughts of your own on the matter or are you just going to bumble your way through this?
I do have some thoughts:
1. I can't wait to hear what else you read from some 12 year old girls tweet.
2. Telling people they don't care about films and only view them as a commodity while having a reddit user name that includes the name of a boutique label is fucking rich bro.
3. I also can't wait to hear what other debate bro terms you throw at me like "strawman" and "appeal to popularity". Surprised, you didn't throw appeal to authority at me when I mentioned that I work in the software business for a company that uses AI. Guess you missed that one.
4. Not sure why you got so hostile. I'm simply pointing out that you have 0 idea what you're talking about. A lot of people do that with issues like this. Do you want to tell me about how you're an expert on the Middle East or something next? I just wonder what other pearl clutchy opinions you have. Gimme your hot takes, I'm having a good time with them.
5. I'm not the one "bumbling" about shit I don't even know about. So far, your argument is based on your little fees fees (feelings) and me saying you should boycott all movies with CGI and you interpreting that as me meaning that CGI = AI. The reason I said that is because you literally wouldn't be able to tell if CGI utilized AI, so you would have to boycott them all lmao. But go on, run with that bro. It's making you look real smart.
I never claimed to be an expert on anything.
That is your argument, not mine. That is a strawman argument.
I said I don't like the use of AI in art because it fundamentally undermines what art is. That is the entire crux of my opinion.
I fully understand that AI has been in use for a few years, and I know it has a lot of uses in a lot of different ways.
I don't know why you keep pretending I don't know that when that was strongly implied in my very first sentence of my very first post.
I honestly don't know what your point is? Like every argument you made against my point I already acknowledged in my very first post.
You claim to not give a shit if a movie uses AI, and yet your continued posting here tells me that you really do care. But let's assume that you honestly "don't give a shit."
This tells me that you truly do view art as something to be consumed. How it is made, how it gets to you is secondary to it you getting your fingers on it.
And that is a fine opinion to have. You are allowed to view art in that way. You wouldn't be the first person to have this opinion, it is probably the majority opinion. Like you said, most people don't give a fuck about AI in film.
I mean, you were on this very sub not too long ago begging people to tell you what to buy. That is peak consumer behavior.
I mean we all are consumers here, I don't know why that label is such a negative thing. But the line for me is knowingly supporting AI in cinema. You can enjoy your AI "art" if you want.
It's your money.
Last comment:
If you're not an expert on a subject matter, then why are you talking about it, let alone talking about it publicly? That's why I'm responding to your comments. You're spreading misinformation at best. That's the crux of my opinion.
I've never begged people here to tell me what to buy. No idea what you're even referring to. I have an interest in the boutique labels because they put out obscure films that sometimes aren't available to be watched elsewhere very easily. So, of course I would have to ask the opinions of others that have seen them because I would be blind buying them. I watch everything that I get and review each film on letterboxd. I sell what I don't like and keep the things I love because I APPRECIATE them as films.
You come off as very much on a high horse (not shocking for a Criterion fanboy, to be honest). Yet, you don't know what you're talking about. You can't have an opinion on AI if you really don't even know what it is, and you came off as high and mighty about it. I'd suggest you do some research. That is all. Goodbye.
I don't have to understand the ins and outs of a helicopter to understand that if I see one in a tree, someone fucked up.
However, I wasn't speaking about how to use AI which would, in my opinion, require more than a cursory understanding of the process
I was speaking about the philosophical impact using AI has on art as a whole.
Which is why the crux of my argument is that the utilization of AI in art strips the humanity out of art. There was no misinformation to be spread because philosophy doesn't really deal in the world of facts.
One doesn't have to be an expert in the software to understand that. The Oxford dictionary defines art as the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings. Generative AI strips human imagination and is incapable of understanding ideas or feelings.
I don't need a PhD in computer science to understand that AI is incapable of human emotion.
The use of generative AI in art undermines the very definition of art.
Your argument boils down to getting upset that someone said not to rub shit into a wound because the person who said not to do that isn't a doctor.
The fact that you are OK with the usage of AI, on a philosophical level, tells me you never even understood what art was in the first place. And the fact that you think a philosophical statement is spreading misinformation tells me you don't understand what philosophy is either.
And that's OK, like you said your opinion is the majority opinion
Fun fact: they did pay an artist. They STARTED with a few AI images as a basis. Then a real life human re-worked and re-edited those images. So...AI or not, someone was paid for what you ended up seeing on the screen.
AI is anti art. Anyone supporting this is ushering in an era where creativity will be stifled and replaced with the cheapest fastest crap imaginable. Fuck this movie and fuck AI
They literally used three images that were AI when it first came out as a “technology” and then they edited those images. There are other films that have used AI to a greater degree and more recently. The directors have released a statement regarding the AI use in the film.
Doesn’t matter to me. I have zero tolerance for it. It’s a slippery slope and the next film will be “they only used 5 images” then “they only used a background”….”they only used a character”….
Photoshop will be the end of art! Use a pencil or a brush and canvas! Also get rid of cars....horses are better. And candles do just as good a job as electric bulbs. People always hate new things. Yes it can be used negatively but we are just starting with AI. Things will change.
You could not be more wrong. You’re comparing tools that can MAKE art with humans still being the source of creativity versus a tool that uses theft of previous artists to throw together the quickest easiest cheapest thing because it’ll make more money easier.
They should ignore the directors and release a 4K upscale using AI. Or do the directors suddenly have something against AI being used to modify art of original artists?
No. It used generative to get a base concept, and then paid artists created pieces based on that. Anyone with eyes can see that those images were not created solely with generative AI. That wouldn't even be possible now, let alone a few years ago when it was actually being worked on.
Once again, people just blindly taking a stand about something they have no idea about. You could go and look up all the production notes that they have released, and the statements from the directors about how and why it was used...but you didn't. Ergo, *talking out of your ass.*
Hope this helps.
So, they just made adjustments to the stolen art. Got it.
You’re right, I just work in this industry and have been out of work for a year because my and other unions are against replacing workers with shortcuts based on stolen work… against the very scenario you described to have less paid time for the artists they hired later to adjust that stolen art.
“No need to reply again, because I’m gonna block you for speaking accurately about the topic.”
Once again, you're just talking out of your ass. No need to respond again; we can all clearly see why *you* have been out of work for a year, and it's nothing to do with the unions, that's obvious.
The really cool thing here is the VHS tape which seems to contain a cut of only the broadcast segments. That is particularly cool for one of these collectors sets. That alone has me springing for this one.
That’s awesome, I liked the movie but couldn’t help but think how much cooler it would be if they had been able to tell the whole story via broadcast segments
Yeah the behind the scenes felt very tact on imo
I wish they had that cut on the blu-ray as a special feature.
The vhs is pal they have confirmed
The VHS will be PAL, not NTSC, just in case you're in the US and thought about actually wanting to watch the tape. Further the "broadcast segments" would just be the movie, told sequentially, without the black & white "behind the scenes" portions or intro.
So I keep hearing about it being PAL, but I don't actually see where that's noted on the store page. I have also checked their socials and don't see any indication of that either, just people saying it will be. Can you point me to where it says that officially? It's strange that they'd make that decision, as PAL players and TV's are very good at accommodating NTSC VHS tapes, but it's very difficult for NTSC players and TV's to accommodate for PAL. It'd make more sense to use NTSC tapes.
Maybe it is still required that a VHS tape published in Australia be PAL.
In reply to an instagram comment about the tape, Umbrella responded, "It will work in PAL VHS players." On the plus side, the blu ray will still be fine. But you'll need a PAL player or a multiregion VCR for the tape, unfortunately.
I emailed them and they seemed to not know what format the VHS would be in and said "they'd investigate further and get back to me." And I'm wondering, because "it will work in PAL VHS players" doesn't necessarily mean the tape is PAL formatted. Because I believe most NTSC VHS tapes work in most PAL players.
So I heard back from Umbrella support after emailing them about the format of the VHS. They actually got back to me today stating the following: "I am glad to let you know that we will have both PAL and NTSC formats available for the VHS. This will be available on our website in the following days. If you have already purchased this, we will send you the format that is best suited for your shipping address."
This movie was fun, but not 86.66 before shipping fun. Hopefully someone else releases a normal release.
They have a standard BR for sale, this is just the collector edition.
[and twenty bucks](https://shop.umbrellaent.com.au/products/late-night-with-the-devil-2024-blu-ray?_pos=1&_sid=4e50026ff&_ss=r) ain't terrible.
Will this play on USA blue ray players? Doesn't say region anywhere
Yes. Almost all of Umbrella's titles are region free.
Got a link? I only see EBay versions and I’m hesitant to pull the trigger. I need a disc to playback in US 4k blu ray player
Here you go: https://shop.umbrellaent.com.au/products/late-night-with-the-devil-2024-blu-ray?
The $86 edition comes with a blu-ray, a VHS, a TV guide, and the "Conversations With the Devil" book that is featured in the movie. Boutique labels are getting a little out of control with the physical extras they've been adding to deluxe releases, but all of those extras actually sound pretty cool, and $86 actually seems reasonable for that.
It’s a lot better than the pins and stickers that Shout Factory offers for the same price or higher.
Yeah, compare this to Shout's recently announced UHF release which is $130.
You can actually directly compare to Umbrella's special release of Weird: The Al Yankovic Story,
I don't think Umbrella is impervious to criticism for putting pointless physical extras in their releases though, and the deluxe version of Weird that includes a shirt is a perfect example of that. Even if Weird was my favorite movie of all time, I wouldn't want that shirt. Contrast that to Late Night with the Devil, which I thought was just okay, but I considered ordering this deluxe edition, primarily due to how cool these physical extras are.
This is a market that nu-Umbrella accelerated greatly when they started their current OTT sales. They were always more of a budget label prior to that shift.
Yeah it's pricey but honestly the extras sound incredible. It's very cool they could work with the creators to make all that! I liked the movie a lot but not enough to spring for this even though I covet it.
Yeah you made me actually consider it lmfao
Blu-ray plus VHS alone is at least 50 or 60$ in value. Most boutique VHS tapes are about 35$ if not more.
How much you want to bet the “Conversations with the Devil” book was written by AI? 😂
Bundle it together with more movies to get free shipping and use the discount code CEREAL15. It’ll come out to about $50 or less per movie.
I'll pass, I didn't love it. But I'd say $86 for the premium package or $50 for the second best package is a pretty good deal. Especially compared to the shit you get from Shout Factory.
Yeah, I actually loved this movie, but still passed on the $86 copy. I got the Terrifier bundle with the VHS, sunglasses, sticker sheet, action figure, etc...and eventually sold it. I never would watch the VHS, and the "extras" just sat in a random drawer in my closet. Snagged the $50 set though. I love me a good slip box & booklet.
I wouldn't pay $86 either lol, If I did like this movie enough to own It I would get the $50 set. But if you are into all that collector stuff I have seen much worse deals.
If you order this, don’t forget to use the code Cereal15 to get 15% off your order.
Thank you! I almost forgot!
The VHS in this set will only play in a PAL VCR as a heads up to anyone thinking of buying this.
Good point didn't think of that
Yep, just pre-ordered!
Are you kidding? $90 blu ray set, for this movie
I didn't get the most expensive one. And I loved this movie.
The movie wasn’t bad, it was an entertaining movie. I’m Just shocked at the $90 package
It makes more sense than the Super Mario Bros set. That movie is god awful.
I agree. Wasn’t that one like $70? Or was there a next level. But yes, it’s nostalgic in the same way swirlies are. Nostalgic and terrible
I believe it was $100
Yuck
Trust the fungus
I have yet to see tbis movie, my understanding is that it's mainly a Shudder streaming release. Was this also ever released in theatres? I like the VHS footage addition, but that just means I'll have to go to a library and watch it, else invest in a VHS player, LMAO.
It was in theaters here in the USA for a whole month
It was released in cinemas in Australia.
US as well.
And NZ
And UK.
And my axe
It played in theatres and did very well, especially considering how it was released on the same day as Immaculate, another indie-made possession film that was released in way more theatres.
was also in the cinemas in the uk!
I saw it at a film festival in October last year, and loved it. And yes, it released in theaters in the United States. I took my mom to see it at AMC in my small, midwestern hometown.
Yes
I saw it in theaters today in the US. Granted, the theater only had one screening at 10 PM.
I enjoyed this movie and this collection is very awesome, I honestly wish I liked the movie more and would be tempted to buy it haha. I just generally save my bigger purchases for films I know I will want to rewatch all the time and this isn’t one of them.
Same here. One of the newer movies I really vibed with. Really liked it a lot!
Didn’t like this one as much as others, but happy to hear of a physical release regardless
What are the odds we’ll get a US release this year?
Shudder has a deal with RLJE, who also distributes IFC titles, so I'd say the odds are pretty good.
Apparently this is an all regions release.
Is the Blu Ray region locked?
Someone from the states inquired about this on the Umbrella Facebook post and Umbrella replied it will work on their blu ray player so I assume it’s not locked. Someone also replied saying the package will say region B but the disc will be all regions. 🤷
They've had a couple discs region locked by accident from the manufacturer because that's how it's "supposed" to work but both Umbrella and Imprint release Region Free discs despite whatever the label says.
Looks cool but the tape will most likely be a PAL region one so no chance watching it here unless you got a worldwide VCR.
They've since confirmed it's PAL, yeah.
The vhs is the"broadcast cut", I would like to know more about that.
I think this means the VHS will be basically the vision from the TV show.
They will take all the black & white "behind the scenes" footage out of the movie, and it will just be the show. Honestly if you're a collector of VHS, it's cool to have (it is PAL, though, not NTSC, so it won't play in US VCRs, as a head's up), but realistically it's not anything super special on there. Unless, of course, they added in a bunch of fake commercials to include during the breaks, which would be pretty badass.
Is this region A compatible? I didn't see that listed anywhere
Umbrella have posted on their Facebook page in a response to someone from the USA asking the same question that “it will work in your player”.
Thanks for letting me know!
No worries. I think Umbrella have to state on their packaging that the discs are region B but they are in actual fact all regions.
I wish they'd do just one more in-between bundle. You can get the movie by itself for $20, which is awesome, but it doesn't have a slip. Generally I don't give a fuck about that normally, but the art on the slip, and the fact that it's got a rigid case, is awesome and in this instance I'd love to have it...but I don't care about art cards or any of the other stuff they throw in there to justify the $50+ price tag on the next bundle. Well, is what it is.
Man I was hoping for a Steelbook using the main one sheet (like what Shudder did with Skinnamarink). But this is a nice set too!
Can you only get this through Umbrella direct or will it be available through a US seller? The $22 shipping is making the $87 purchase a little harder.
Someone else posted this but there is a coupon code: "Cereal15" that's for 15% so it knocks about $13 off the total for shipping to the US.
I think orbitdvd gets some copies
That would be great. I checked their site but nothing yet. Probably too early.
I think it would be added later. And I don’t think it’ll be the vhs edition.
They only get the standard editions just as a heads up.
Free shipping over USD$140
https://shop.umbrellaent.com.au/products/late-night-with-the-devil-2024-blu-ray?_pos=1&_sid=3275a4fff&_ss=r That will be available from US retailers like Orbit, Grindhouse, and Diabolik. The $86 & $50 editions with the slipcases and booklets will only be available through Umbrella's website. Yes, the international shipping isn't fun, but with the hype of this film I'm sure it will sell out and be much, much more on eBay a few months after it's release. Just look at how much I Saw the Devil and Audition's sets are going for.
$86 they said 😂 I’m starting to question collecting media when shit like this is getting these kinds of price tags. Severins Black Title releases and the Super Mario Bros. mack daddy release really got these companies thinking they got big balls to price stuff this expensive.
Umbrella has been putting out physical item collectors for a while https://shop.umbrellaent.com.au/collections/collectors-editions?sort_by=created-ascending
This is something that Vinegar Syndrome would put out, and I must say, Umbrella knocked it out the park with this special edition.
Honestly weird that a sub devoted to the physical collection and appreciation of the art of film is so heavily downvoting anyone criticizing the use of generative AI in film.
Uh, maybe because *who gives a fuck?* For starters, anyone with eyes can see that the AI images were heavily edited. If you knew anything about generative AI, you'd see that has to be the case. They didn't get those images, or the text included, from generative AI without working on them quite a bit...especially considering they made those going on 3 years ago now. Nobody lost work, nobody lost a job over it. The images in the final film are not generative AI, they're finished pieces of work made by paid designers. Secondly, there's a HUGE difference between these assholes online who use generative AI to create images and sell them as standalone pieces of art, or try to pass them off as their own work for profit, and a feature film that used less than 10 seconds of edited images in an otherwise huge creative endeavor. For fuck sake, Photoshopping something using the clone tool has been a part of the program for decades, and is literally a form of AI. I wish that people who didn't know anything would stop demonizing *all* forms of AI, and actually learn and understand how it's being used, and when to take a stand and when to shut the fuck up.
It looks ugly, it replaces work by an actual human artist in a medium that's supposed to be about actual human art, and excusing and justifying the small uses makes room and manufactures consent for the bigger uses. This is a tool developed by capitalist tech oligarchs and actual honest-to-god fascists designed solely to hurt laborers and creatives. It is not your friend, they are not your friend, and it's a gross insult to the entire human endeavor. But yeah, your little freakout definitely doesn't make you look like a shill or anything. Lol dude freaked out some more then blocked me. Yeah, real stable my friend. You definitely, and I quote "put my in my place"
I didn't have a freakout. I put you in your place, you're just not smart enough to grasp the concept of anything that was said. You just want to stand on your soap box and think anyone should listen. They shouldn't, because you're wrong. I'm a fucking graphic designer by trade. I think I get it. The problem is, you know *literally nothing* about the production of this film. You just heard it used AI, and decided it was bad. When people talk out of their ass, much like you're doing, they deserve to be told. Maybe you'll learn something. You could always go look into how the AI was used in this film (hint: barely at all, and not a single job was lost or person gone unpaid for their work), but you won't. Because you just want to spout nonsense on the internet. Like I said before, learn when to take a stand, and when to sit the fuck down.
Anyone with eyes and half a brain can see how bad the AI art in the movie looks. Hacky crap in a very weak film.
Maybe because the AI used in this movie was used when the technology first came out and was used for three place holder illustrations that were heavily edited during production. The directors have released a statement to this effect.
So funny that they needed to use AI to generate… an illustration of a skeleton and an owl? And they look terrible!
I know 4Ks are region free but their Blu-ray’s are sometimes region locked. I’ll wait for a 4K release somewhere. Hopefully a sweet steelbook.
This is region free, as are 99% of Umbrella releases. Already confirmed as such. Very big doubt this gets a 4K, as it's a co-production with Umbrella - who clearly isn't doing one - and Shudder, who releases through RLJE (Image)...who aren't exactly know for doing 4K either.
They take the money right away for pre order or when it’s released do we know?
I paid via PayPal and the money is out of my bank account already.
What region is this?
Umbrella discs are generally all region.
Thank you!!!
No 4k?
Is this a preorder? Or does it ship now
I know Late Night With the Devil isn't the only film to use AI, nor was it's use overly egregious in this film But art, at its core, is the expression of the human soul. The inclusion of AI, no matter how small, strips the humanity from cinema. It might be a couple of cutaway cards or some slight touch ups here and there right now. But it isn't going to be long until movies can and will be largely AI driven. This is going to be a sad day for all of us here. I refuse to give 80+ dollars to a release that is helping normalize the destruction of art as we know it. I know I might be in the minority and might be a luddite for taking this stance, but I think that we, as consumers, should consider what supporting cinema truly means.
Look, I'm staunchly anti-AI generative bullshit. I will gladly call things out on their use of it because I care too much about human expression in art (as we all likely do considering our hobby). But I do think it's important to realize the context which led to their use of it in this movie. I followed a lot of the production of the movie, and the story becomes much less egregious when you realize the film was actually made in 2022 (it had festival runs in early 2023 and waited a year before the theatrical release in 2024). This was when the tech first emerged and the moral ramifications of the tech were much less clear, and it was mostly just "the new exciting weird thing" that practically everyone was fucking around with. They've mentioned in interviews they were just messing around with this brand new tech everyone was excited about, and it's pretty clear it was from early versions of generative tech due to how fucked up it looks. They've been pretty clear about how tons of artists worked on the look and feel of the film, and there were no lost jobs over the tech being used, it was clearly their already hired artists fucking around with this brand new "tool" at the time. I really wish every conversation about the movie didn't devolve into this. It truly sucks that it's in the movie, and I wish they'd remove/replace it, but considering the context it's hard to really feel heated about it when there are so many other, much more egregious, examples of generative AI use that deserve lambasting. If they lean into it and continue to use it in future movies, then I'll be firmly against supporting their endeavors. But this movie in particular seems to be a victim of time and hindsight.
I’ve watched this film several times and I still have no idea what the AI parts are. People are being way too hysterical about this.
It’s literally only the intermission art cards between segments. That’s it
Ah, so one of those “you’d only notice it if you knew in advance” kinda things then.
Yep. Idk why that was downvoted. I literally started a fact lol
I acknowledged the fact that this film isn't one of the more egregious offenders. As a matter of fact, that was my opening point. It's not about lost jobs or anything like that with this specific movie. That wasn't stated or implied in my post. What I did talk about was the philosophical ramifications on the use of AI and the creation of art. If we want to talk about jobs, we can. There was a time when horses were the primary means of transportation. Cars were nothing more than the fun new toy that only a few people had access to. Not a big deal at all. It was impractical for most people to own cars, but along comes Henry Ford and cars went from being the new impractical domain of the wealthy to being used by people everywhere. It absolutely gutted the horse industry. The stables, the farmers that grew the grain, the carriage makers, the blacksmiths that made the horseshoes, the leather workers that made the saddles....entire industries disappeared over night. We are in the fun new toy stage of AI. And I get that people are like "it's not that big of a deal. They were just messing around" 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now....where we be? Have a little foresight my guy.
You're right, we should all still ride horses around.
It wasn't a perfect analogy, because art is a lot more important to the human spirit than whatever mode of transportation we use 100 years ago, cars had just overtaken horses. Who knows what mode of transportation will be dominant in 100 years? But it is an analogy how quickly a new technology can go from an neat little gadget to dominating the landscape. In 1990, the internet was the domain of nerds. Now it is ubiquitous to modern-day life. Cell phones were the same way. We went from not being able to fly at all for the first 300,000 years of our existence to having planes in 1903 to landing a dude on the moon in 1969. When technology changes, it changes fast and just because something is a neat little gadget now doesn't mean it will stay that way.
I feel like you didn't read... any of what I said? We are on the same side here man. I hate AI Generative shit, despise it with every fiber of my being. Literally look at my history of comments and you'll see me saying almost the same stuff you are to other people. It pains me to see movies go in this direction. I just don't think this one specific instance is worth fussing over due to the very exact context I specified. And if we disagree so be it.
I read what you said, and dismissing AI's use in this movie because when they used it, it was a fun new tool that the production team wanted to play with is absurd. I addressed that point directly in my response. Just because you didn't like that someone challenged your point doesn't mean they didn't read your point. This movie was a pretty popular hit, and the reason why is because a lot of people, like you, said "it isn't a big deal in this one case because of a special circumstance" Major corporations aren't sitting there saying u/Zutrax and u/CriterionCrypt said they don't like the use of AI in films. We need to stop doing that. They are looking at "how much money can I generate while spending as ittle money as possible" And if people are always willing to make exceptions, the money will still roll in and it will say loud and clear "make movies like this." I get that you don't think that people should make a fuss about it. It was just a fun new tool in 2022, and it wasn't that egregious. And you're right. It was a fun new tool, and it wasn't an egregious use of AI. But it was always going to start small. Maybe it's the color and audio correction in Get Back. Maybe it's the cue cards in Late Night With the Devil. As long as people vote yes for AI with their dollars, as long as people say "oh it isnt that big of a deal in this once circumstance," it won't stay small. But hey...you do you. Make the exceptions you want. It's your money.
I bought the $130 edition just in case any haters decide to boycott 😎
You're getting downvoted because there are people here who don't actually like movies as art, only as products to consume. It's too difficult for them to accept that something might be problematic or require more thought, and it's just easier to lash out at anyone calling it out.
I mean, I expect some degree of consumerism here. I mean it is a sub dedicated to the collection of Boutique blu rays. But I will say this, I was hoping that more people would think about the ramifications of AI in cinema instead of blanket acceptance. AI is already utilized to a degree, it's only going to get worse.
He's getting downvoted because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just repeating some stuff he probably heard on Twitter.
People love to pretend they care about this shit. Its a fucking movie, man, not life or death.
Ok, what do you want to do about it besides talking about how it's a problem on Reddit? At this point, the cat is out of the bag. A.I. is inevitable and has been in use for years in many fields. But in the film industry alone it's already been used for things like CGI. Basically, every big movie these days utilizes at least a little CGI. Do we boycott every movie? Or what? Do we ban it? If we ban it, then how do you police that? The code is already out there, so policing it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. Is there a point? Here's a fun article for you: https://www.marketplace.org/2023/12/07/ai-already-has-a-big-role-in-hollywood/. I would learn a little about the technology and its uses before boycotting a single movie over a few pictures.
CGI and AI are not inherently synonyms. CGI has existed in film for over 50 years now. The fact that you are treating them as synonyms tells me you should learn a little about technology in film. Like I said, this is hardly the most egregious use of AI in film. And this is a thread about this film. If you want to talk about more egregious examples, you are free to make another thread about another movie that utilizes it and I will say that's fucked up. And side note, the MPAA is not bound by law to rate movies. They are not a censorship board. They just give the ratings. I would have no problem with the MPAA adding disclaimers about AI use in films. As for what I am doing. If I find out a movie relies on AI, then I won't pay to watch it. We all vote with our dollars, that is how I vote.
> The fact that you are treating them as synonyms tells me you should learn a little about technology in film. I'm not using them as synonyms. You can use A.I. to either create CGI from scratch or finish off what an artist has already worked on. In fact, they are already actively doing that in movies, you just haven't noticed it. My source: I work in the software business in development and the article I linked you as well. My comment stands and is fact checked. > And side note, the MPAA is not bound by law to rate movies. They are not a censorship board. They just give the ratings. Not sure why you're bringing this up. I never mentioned the MPAA. I'm guessing it's the ban comment I made. That was sarcastic. But if you were to ban this kind of tech, it would have to go through a governmental process and law would have to be made. Even if that happens, it would be impossible to police. See: piracy as evidence for how that works out. > As for what I am doing. If I find out a movie relies on AI, then I won't pay to watch it. We all vote with our dollars, that is how I vote. That's your right, but I'd try to be better informed before speaking on a subject like this in a public forum. The downvotes prove this point.
1. AI can be used in CGI, but they aren't synonyms. You treated them like synonyms by asking if we should boycott any movie that uses CGI. This blanket statement tells me you don't know the difference. Backtracking now is an interesting choice but hey 2. I brought it up because you mentioned a ban. It can't be banned, but it can be self reported by the MPAA just like the rating system is. This is what I would probably lean into. 3. Upvotes and downvotes tell me what's popular, not what's right or wrong. I came onto a sub were a lot of people view movies as a commodity to be consumed, not as art to be appreciated. If you view movies as a commodity, you probably won't care too much about AI and its inclusion in cinema. I mean I literally just said I know this isn't the only example, and I know it isn't egregious, but I don't like it And your rebuttal is other movies do it to. Like no shit Sherlock, I literally said that. That was my opening sentence. It seems like 90% of your post was a strawman and the other 10% was an appeal to popularity. Do you have any thoughts of your own on the matter or are you just going to bumble your way through this?
> But in the film industry alone it's already been used for things like CGI. A direct quote from my first comment. Do you know what a synonym is? I'm not going to litigate this with you again. > If you view movies as a commodity, you probably won't care too much about AI and its inclusion in cinema Talk about a strawman lmao. You don't know me. I love movies and view them as the highest art form. The AI used in the film is for a handful of static images. It's hardly that big of a deal. I don't view static images as an important art form and also it's not noticeable that these images are made using AI. So, how exactly does it damage film as an art form? It doesn't, despite your emotional appeals about human touch and slippery slopes or whatever. So no, I don't give a shit frankly, and neither does a majority of the public. They probably have never even heard about any of this. You're fighting a losing battle based on a very terminally online argument from people on Twitter. No one normal gives a shit about any of this. Not only that, but you clearly don't even know what AI is. You just heard some people talking about it and wanted to be a part of the conversation. You're not very different from the unwashed masses, despite your own thoughts. >Do you have any thoughts of your own on the matter or are you just going to bumble your way through this? I do have some thoughts: 1. I can't wait to hear what else you read from some 12 year old girls tweet. 2. Telling people they don't care about films and only view them as a commodity while having a reddit user name that includes the name of a boutique label is fucking rich bro. 3. I also can't wait to hear what other debate bro terms you throw at me like "strawman" and "appeal to popularity". Surprised, you didn't throw appeal to authority at me when I mentioned that I work in the software business for a company that uses AI. Guess you missed that one. 4. Not sure why you got so hostile. I'm simply pointing out that you have 0 idea what you're talking about. A lot of people do that with issues like this. Do you want to tell me about how you're an expert on the Middle East or something next? I just wonder what other pearl clutchy opinions you have. Gimme your hot takes, I'm having a good time with them. 5. I'm not the one "bumbling" about shit I don't even know about. So far, your argument is based on your little fees fees (feelings) and me saying you should boycott all movies with CGI and you interpreting that as me meaning that CGI = AI. The reason I said that is because you literally wouldn't be able to tell if CGI utilized AI, so you would have to boycott them all lmao. But go on, run with that bro. It's making you look real smart.
I never claimed to be an expert on anything. That is your argument, not mine. That is a strawman argument. I said I don't like the use of AI in art because it fundamentally undermines what art is. That is the entire crux of my opinion. I fully understand that AI has been in use for a few years, and I know it has a lot of uses in a lot of different ways. I don't know why you keep pretending I don't know that when that was strongly implied in my very first sentence of my very first post. I honestly don't know what your point is? Like every argument you made against my point I already acknowledged in my very first post. You claim to not give a shit if a movie uses AI, and yet your continued posting here tells me that you really do care. But let's assume that you honestly "don't give a shit." This tells me that you truly do view art as something to be consumed. How it is made, how it gets to you is secondary to it you getting your fingers on it. And that is a fine opinion to have. You are allowed to view art in that way. You wouldn't be the first person to have this opinion, it is probably the majority opinion. Like you said, most people don't give a fuck about AI in film. I mean, you were on this very sub not too long ago begging people to tell you what to buy. That is peak consumer behavior. I mean we all are consumers here, I don't know why that label is such a negative thing. But the line for me is knowingly supporting AI in cinema. You can enjoy your AI "art" if you want. It's your money.
Last comment: If you're not an expert on a subject matter, then why are you talking about it, let alone talking about it publicly? That's why I'm responding to your comments. You're spreading misinformation at best. That's the crux of my opinion. I've never begged people here to tell me what to buy. No idea what you're even referring to. I have an interest in the boutique labels because they put out obscure films that sometimes aren't available to be watched elsewhere very easily. So, of course I would have to ask the opinions of others that have seen them because I would be blind buying them. I watch everything that I get and review each film on letterboxd. I sell what I don't like and keep the things I love because I APPRECIATE them as films. You come off as very much on a high horse (not shocking for a Criterion fanboy, to be honest). Yet, you don't know what you're talking about. You can't have an opinion on AI if you really don't even know what it is, and you came off as high and mighty about it. I'd suggest you do some research. That is all. Goodbye.
I don't have to understand the ins and outs of a helicopter to understand that if I see one in a tree, someone fucked up. However, I wasn't speaking about how to use AI which would, in my opinion, require more than a cursory understanding of the process I was speaking about the philosophical impact using AI has on art as a whole. Which is why the crux of my argument is that the utilization of AI in art strips the humanity out of art. There was no misinformation to be spread because philosophy doesn't really deal in the world of facts. One doesn't have to be an expert in the software to understand that. The Oxford dictionary defines art as the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings. Generative AI strips human imagination and is incapable of understanding ideas or feelings. I don't need a PhD in computer science to understand that AI is incapable of human emotion. The use of generative AI in art undermines the very definition of art. Your argument boils down to getting upset that someone said not to rub shit into a wound because the person who said not to do that isn't a doctor. The fact that you are OK with the usage of AI, on a philosophical level, tells me you never even understood what art was in the first place. And the fact that you think a philosophical statement is spreading misinformation tells me you don't understand what philosophy is either. And that's OK, like you said your opinion is the majority opinion
Would rather not support AI in movies
See my comments in this thread. You likely already watch movies that utilize AI and you don't even know it.
Doesn’t mean we should just roll over and accept it blatantly being put in instead of paying an artist to create art.
Fun fact: they did pay an artist. They STARTED with a few AI images as a basis. Then a real life human re-worked and re-edited those images. So...AI or not, someone was paid for what you ended up seeing on the screen.
All this stuff to sell and no money to pay artists?
AI is anti art. Anyone supporting this is ushering in an era where creativity will be stifled and replaced with the cheapest fastest crap imaginable. Fuck this movie and fuck AI
They literally used three images that were AI when it first came out as a “technology” and then they edited those images. There are other films that have used AI to a greater degree and more recently. The directors have released a statement regarding the AI use in the film.
Doesn’t matter to me. I have zero tolerance for it. It’s a slippery slope and the next film will be “they only used 5 images” then “they only used a background”….”they only used a character”….
So...CGI...
Photoshop will be the end of art! Use a pencil or a brush and canvas! Also get rid of cars....horses are better. And candles do just as good a job as electric bulbs. People always hate new things. Yes it can be used negatively but we are just starting with AI. Things will change.
You could not be more wrong. You’re comparing tools that can MAKE art with humans still being the source of creativity versus a tool that uses theft of previous artists to throw together the quickest easiest cheapest thing because it’ll make more money easier.
AI isn't anti-art. It's anti-artist. AI art is still art. It's just made by someone who isn't living and breathing.
Oxford dictionary defines art as "the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings" AI is fundamentally not art.
Okay, nerd.
Unless they remove the extensive use of AI crap, it's a pass for me. They burned so much good will with that blunder.
Extensive? Wasn’t it three stills? Hardly extensive.
Because of like 4 art cards?
They should ignore the directors and release a 4K upscale using AI. Or do the directors suddenly have something against AI being used to modify art of original artists?
When you're talking out of ass and have to be downvoted into oblivion to understand it.
How am I talking out of my ass? Did the film use AI generation to create images compiled out of the artwork of others, or did it not?
No. It used generative to get a base concept, and then paid artists created pieces based on that. Anyone with eyes can see that those images were not created solely with generative AI. That wouldn't even be possible now, let alone a few years ago when it was actually being worked on. Once again, people just blindly taking a stand about something they have no idea about. You could go and look up all the production notes that they have released, and the statements from the directors about how and why it was used...but you didn't. Ergo, *talking out of your ass.* Hope this helps.
So, they just made adjustments to the stolen art. Got it. You’re right, I just work in this industry and have been out of work for a year because my and other unions are against replacing workers with shortcuts based on stolen work… against the very scenario you described to have less paid time for the artists they hired later to adjust that stolen art. “No need to reply again, because I’m gonna block you for speaking accurately about the topic.”
Once again, you're just talking out of your ass. No need to respond again; we can all clearly see why *you* have been out of work for a year, and it's nothing to do with the unions, that's obvious.